veterinary research in the uk

7/25/2019 Veterinary Research in the Uk

1/32

Veterinary research

in the UK: a snapshotA REPORT BY THE

RCVS RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE

2013


2/32

2

Contents

Executive summary 3

Key ndings 4Message from the Research Subcommittee 5

Introduction 6

1. Global importance of veterinary science 7

1.1 Impact on the sustainability of the food-chain 7

1.2 Impact on food security 8

1.3 Impact on food safety 8

1.4 Impact on human and animal welfare 11

1.4.1 Farm animal welfare 11

1.4.2 Companion animals and their owners 12

1.5 Impact on wildlife 12

2. Veterinary research in the UK: facts and gures 14

2.1 The quality of the veterinary research base 14

2.2 Investment in veterinary research 18 2.2.1 Overall values 18

2.2.2 Academic research 19

2.2.3 Defra Animal Health and Welfare Research 20

3. Investing in the veterinary sciences 22

3.1 The agri-food sector 22

3.2 The companion and animal market 23

3.3 The equine market 23

3.4 Aquaculture 24

3.5 The avian market 24

4. Conclusions 25

5. Acknowledgements 25

6. References 26

Annex 28


3/32

Executive summary

The veterinary profession is, at its core, a science-based profession.z

Veterinary research has been responsible for remarkable scientic achievements, of which the globalz

eradication of rinderpest and the production of the rst vaccine for a retrovirus (Feline LeukaemiaVirus) are but two examples.

The health and welfare of the 20 million companion animals in the UK is dependent on solid research,zas is the health and productivity of the more than 36 million of its food animals.

Veterinary research has a part to play in the major challenges that the world is facing at present:z

It can contribute to address inefciencies in the food-chain . With the world populationpredicted to reach 9 billion in 2050, it has been projected that the global poultry production willhave to quadruple, the cattle population will increase to about 2.6 billion (from 1.5 billion in 2000),and the global goat and sheep population from 1.7 billion to about 2.7 billion over the same period.This places an unprecedented pressure on maintaining the health and sustainability of the ockwhich should be addressed by sound veterinary research.

It can help address national food security , ensuring that indigenous food industries arecompetitive and maintained even (or especially) in periods of crisis.

It can prevent or minimize the devastating nancial losses brought about by animaldisease, zoonotic or otherwise, not to mention the losses of animal and human lives. Recurringfoodbourne diseases such as Campylobacteriosisand Salmonelliosiscost the UK respectively538m and 14m per annum. In one year alone, at the height of the BSE crisis, more than 3.5billion were spent in the UK to control and deal with the disease, whilst the Foot and Mouthepidemic cost the UK 8 billion in just 7.5 months. Whereas nancial losses associated withzoonotic outbreaks are measured in billions of pounds, research investment is limited to the lowmillions. Even so, UK veterinary teams have been performing remarkably well it is estimated thatthe Bluetongue vaccination programme in 2008 has saved 460 million and 10,000 jobs in the UK,

not to mention countless animal lives.It can improve food animal welfare and help tackle climate change, since food-producinganimals are one of the great contributors to global warming and veterinary research addresses,among many things, methods to reduce animal emissions.

It can contribute to the conservation of wildlife and inform the conicts of interest betweenhumans and their neighbouring animal populations.

It can improve companion animal and equine health and welfare and consequently improve the

quality of life of the British public known world-wide as a nation of animal lovers whilst, for example,it secures the growth of the pet food industry (responsible for 8,000 direct jobs and a 2.05 billionmarket in the UK) and equine industry (70,000 direct jobs, 4.20 billion annual turnover in the UK).

3


4/32

4

Key ndings

The UK has a highly efcient research base in the veterinary sciences, which is competitive nationallyzwith other research areas of similar size (dentistry) and internationally with both established scientic

powers (USA) and emerging competitors (China, Brazil). This is evidenced by the indicators below:The rate of publication for veterinary science in the UK is on par with dentistry and oral medicine,its usual comparator, reaching 1,080 citable papers for 2011 alone, distributed evenly betweensmall animal, food animal and equine science.

Yearly growth in veterinary publication output in the UK (6%) is slightly higher than for the USA (3%)

but much lower than for China or Brazil (34% and 31% respectively), conrming the status of thelatter countries as emerging scientic competitors.

Even though UK veterinary science publishes fewer papers than its American, Chinese andBrazilian counterparts, it is denitely the most efcient research base, with higher quality papers(consistently cited more often) and with higher impact.

UK veterinary science ranks worldwide at number two (using the h-index rank), which is a

remarkable position, considering the size and investment held by other international researchpowers.

The task of evaluating the trends in investment in veterinary research is extremely challenging duezto a number of factors, chief among which is the lack of a common denition for veterinary research.This should be addressed very quickly so that the eld can be monitored appropriately.

The total amount invested in veterinary research in 2009/2010 was very roughly estimated to bezaround 127-128 million. The lion share of this investment has been provided by Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences ResearchCouncil (BBSRC) and the Wellcome Trust, with the universities securing about 44% of the overallsum.

Comparisons with the value of investment in 1996/97 (at the time of publishing of the Selborne report)z

are not appropriate because the individual value were not published at the time and because theBBSRC has considerably expanded its denition of veterinary research since then, inadvertentlycreating an articial boost of the values between the two different periods.

Considering all the major funders except BBSRC (Defra, Wellcome Trust and the industrial fundingzbodies) there is an apparent reduction of 5.5% in investment on veterinary research over the last 14years. If BBSRC values are included, this value articially changes to an increase in investment of32%, mostly due to the administrative changes.

Veterinary academic research has seen an increase of 67% in funding between 1996/97 andz2009/2010. Whilst the overall nancial balance is apparently positive for academia it is unclear if thisis also due to administrative changes. For example, contributions to the research infrastructure whichwere previously not included in grant-making totals have started to be included in funding values.

Furthermore, it should be said that this apparent investment has been made with sudden increasesand cuts between the years. Whilst any growth in investment is certainly welcomed by academicresearch, having such a large variation in income can place a big strain on resources, hinder theestablishment of a solid research infrastructure and compromise the long term sustainability of theUKs veterinary research environment.

There is evidence to believe that veterinary research funding tends to have a reactive approach,zpeaking after a zoonotic disease outbreak, rather than a proactive strategic outlook.


5/32

5

Message from the RCVS Research

SubcommitteeVeterinary research has possibly never been so important to society.

In the context of One Health and as the world is facing collective challenges relating to climate changeand to feeding the nine billion people who are predicted to populate the globe by 2050, veterinarysurgeons have a remarkable role to play.

They are being called forward to perform the vital surveillance that ensures a safe food-chain and tomanage the productivity and welfare of food animals with regards to their health and to their contributionto global warming, but have also a fundamental role in preserving animal wildlife and protectingcompanion animals who are increasingly a part of family life and a growing market in a recessioneconomy.

If veterinary surgeons are to respond to these challenges, they need to do so in the context of properacademic research underpinnings and the UK needs to ensure that its veterinary research base isequipped and dynamic enough to carry out its important mission.

In 1996-1997, the Wellcome Trust and the RCVS funded an exercise to assess the state of veterinaryresearch which came to be known as the Selborne Report. In it, important considerations were madesuch as the need to increase the exposure of veterinary undergraduates to research environments anda need to establish more collaborative ventures between the various bodies involved with animal healthand welfare research.

In the time since, signicant progress has been made regarding undergraduate veterinary research butthere is a distinct lack of evidence that forbids comparisons to be made and progress to be assessed.The Research Subcommittee felt that it was important to establish some base indicators against whichto monitor veterinary research for the future, but also that a case should clearly be made for veterinaryresearch as the biggest foundation for the activity of veterinary surgeons and nurses.

A clear denition of veterinary research still does not exist and because of that the level of investment inveterinary research cannot truly be compared. On the other hand, veterinary research is not solely carried

out by veterinary surgeons as there are a number of interdisciplinary teams working on translationalresearch. These issues make the task of monitoring the veterinary research environment especiallychallenging.

The following document discusses the case for veterinary research in terms of its global importance andthen moves on to investigate its strengths in the UK. We were pleased to conrm that the UK veterinaryresearch base is one of the most efcient in the world, and second only to the USA in terms ofh-indexranking, despite of its much smaller size. However, we were concerned to verify that research budgetshave been steadily declining at Defra over the past 14 years and that priorities tend to be set reactively peaking after zoonotic outbreaks and do not reect the proactiveness expected of a country that has inits agricultural base 7% of its GDP.

With this document we hope to help increase the justied pride that UK veterinary surgeons should

have in their research base but also to raise our concerns with regards to assuring adequate levels offunding that fully reect the sizeable risks that are involved with animal health, which go far beyond food-producing animals and zoonotic threats.

The RCVS Research Subcommittee exists to promote research as the principal element of evidence-based veterinary practice, to support the veterinary profession and the public in relation to animal(and human) health and welfare, and to ensure that veterinary research takes its place as a valuedcontributor within the broad spectrum of biomedical research by, among other actions, ensuring thatveterinary research achievements are publicised widely and prominently.


6/32

6

Introduction

Periods of economic recession, like the one that assailed several world-leading economies in 2008 and2010, often prompt re-distributions of government funding and force institutions to re-think their strategies

and priorities. In such challenging moments, science should be seen as the ideal tool with which toout-innovate, out-educate and out-build a countrys economic competitors.[3]Scientic researchgenerates wealth and can help drive [a country] to a strong [economic] re-growth through knowledgebased economies.[4]Science can also inspire and inform society, as it can provide means to respond toenvironmental and sociological demands.

Against the backdrop of a growing population and the threats posed by climate change, agriculturaland veterinary research are being relied upon to provide answers and solutions capable of feeding theworlds population in safer and more sustainable ways.[5] The ability to do so will undoubtedly shape thefuture in ways we can only imagine now.

The economical growth of a nation and the health of both its animal and human populations are thereforestrongly dependent on how effectively science namely veterinary science can anticipate and respondto the challenges in animal welfare, public health, food safety and bio-security. In many ways, the

advance of veterinary science is not only scientically interesting, it is vital to secure our future.


7/32

7

1. Global importance of veterinary science1.1 Impact on the sustainability of the food-chain

In the UK, the demand for food is relatively static, as would be expected of a reasonably afuent andgrowing economy. Globally, the picture is quite different.

World population is expected to grow by 2.3 billion over the next decades, reaching over nine billion in2050.[5]Most of this growth will be happening in developing countries ibut the impact of that populationgrowth will undoubtedly be felt far and wide.[6]If production losses (egfrom disease, pests, storage) andfood waste (egduring processing, transportation and consumption) are not appropriately dealt with,global food production will have to increase by 70% between 2005-07 and 2050 to face the growingpopulation trend.

According to the OECD,[6]the challenge [now] is to feed a growing, more urban and, on average, richerpopulation whilst adopting more efcient and sustainable production methods and adapting to climatechange.

Feeding the worlds population will bring in fact it is already bringing incredible challenges in termsof sustainably balancing demand and supply, and adequately managing the contribution of the food

system to the mitigation of climate change, for example. In the next 50 years, the production of food willmost likely involve a strong competition for land, water and energy. Precautionary strategic measures willtherefore need to be taken to ensure that the worlds capacity to produce food is not jeopardised.

In its Foresight Report on the Future of Food and Farming,[5]the Government Ofce for Science warnsthat This is a unique time in history humanity is facing a future that is very different from the past.Decisions made now and over the next few decades will disproportionately inuence the future.

Quality of food, not only the quantity of it, will also suffer a dramatic shift. As incomes rise in developingcountries, diets are expected to slowly diversify away from staple foods towards meat and processedfoods that will favour livestock and dairy products.[6]An analysis of the food consumption in countries likeChina and Brazil shows that the countrys development is generally accompanied by a sharp increase inmeat consumption.

Overall, the global cattle population has been predicted to increase from 1.5 billion in 2000 to about 2.6billion by 2050, and the global goat and sheep population from 1.7 billion to about 2.7 billion over thesame period.[5, 7-8]This places an unprecedented pressure on maintaining the health and sustainability ofthe herd. Similarly, it is estimated that global poultry production will have to quadruple to satisfy demand.

These numbers also highlight the pressures to which the UK livestock sector is currently subjected. Notonly is international competition rising but also heavy regulation has resulted in increased productioncosts for UK farmers, consequently reducing prot margins in a way that, according to Defra, can[jeopardise] the sustainability of the superior UK production system.[9]

An appropriate response to both the challenge of sustainably feeding the growing population, and that ofimproving the quality of production of the national livestock sector depends in large part on technologyand innovation.[6]

In the production of meat for consumption, for example, efciency gains could be achieved if the geneticmarkers associated with traits of economic value were known. For example, the nutritive value ofmeat and milk could be enhanced by providing the livestock industry with information that wouldallow farmers to produce animals with a fatty acid composition closer to that recommended bygovernment.[10]

On the other hand, research and innovation can also help to address major inefciencies in thereproductive performance of ruminants, pigs and poultry which result in breeding percentages wellbelow the potential of the herd/ock. Either by improving the fertility (cattle and sheep), or developingscientically-informed diets for the animals that avoid overfeeding them crude protein or performinggenetic selection (pigs, poultry), a great deal could potentially be achieved in enhancing the UKsresponse to the above mentioned challenges. Additionally, the overall reproductive performance of theherd (effectively meaning the number of offspring reared to slaughter) can be further increased by not

only increasing pre-natal performance but also by increasing post-natal survival.

i Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, is expected to grow the fastest, by some 114%.


8/32

8

1.2 Impact on food security

The UK produces 60% of the food that it consumes (overall) and is 74% self-sufcient in indigenous-typefoodsi, which is within usual values by modern historical standards. It should be noted, however, thatself-sufciency values have markedly declined over the last 200 years (from 100% self-sufciency around1750 to 60% in the 2000s).[11-12]Traditionally, the UK imports more food than it exports, but the decline inself-sufciency, combined with other economic factors has widened the gap between imports and exports

in the last decades.Even though the Cabinet Ofce admits that attempting to pursue national food security in isolation fromthe global context is unlikely to be practicable, sustainable or nancially rational, it also recognises thatimproving competitiveness in food production and raising sustainable output[13]are important objectivesto achieve, which will markedly increase food security.

Agricultural output can be hit by factors such as poor weather and animal disease. An analysis of theUK food self-sufciency ratios by commodity shows that the biggest variation (in the last 20 years) hasoccurred for cattle and calves, beef and veal (Figure 1).[13]It is highly likely that the marked drop in self-sufciency that occurred in the mid-90s is directly related to the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy(BSE) crisis. This illustrates the larger economic risks associated with animal health.

UK self-sufciency varies greatly from commodity to commodity

Figure 1- Variation in UK self-sufciency according to commodity. Source: [13]

Veterinary research enhances the welfare of animals and the protection of the human population fromzoonotic infections, and therefore plays a fundamental role in shielding the markets and protecting theeconomy against disease outbreaks and drops in feed production/rises in feed price. In the same waythat indigenous industries cannot be recreated overnight, vaccines take time to be developed.

For example, the longer we wait to learn about animal diseases, the longer it takes to develop an effectivevaccine. As was shown, this can have serious impact on the security of the food supply, not to mentionthe effects on human and animal health.

1.3 Impact on food safety

There is no room for complacency about food safety. Smarter approaches are needed to ensure thatinterventions focus on the points of highest risk in the food-chain Cabinet Ofce, 2008.

As more developing countries are driven to expand their agricultural capacity, the challenge ofmaintaining the security of the food-chain becomes even greater. Articial economic barriers andgeography have but a small role to play in preventing the spread of disease, as disease knows noborders, especially in an increasingly connected world.

In 2006, 21 billion food animals were produced and transported worldwide.[14]Every year, more than300 million pigs, sheep and cattle are sent to EU-27 slaughterhouses for meat production along with anestimated 6,000 million birds.[15]Securing that each one of these animals is t for human consumption isan enormous task.

Data from the World Health Organisation states that up to 30% of the population in high-incomecountries may suffer from foodborne diseases each year, while the picture in low-income countries is lessclear, but likely to be worse.[5]Alarmingly, about 75% of all new diseases emerging during the last two

decades have been zoonoses.[14]

i In this context, indigenous foods refers to the type of foods that can be produced in the country.


9/32

9

Both domestic and wildlife reservoirs are involved in the transmission of diseases and therefore the riskof zoonotic infection is not predicted to diminish in the future. Trade and markets can create pathways fordisease transfer and evolution, and the wildlife trade may also provide a source of zoonoses.

The real scale of this threat becomes clearer in light of the fact that 270 tonnes of potentiallycontaminated bush meat can pass unchecked through one single European airport a year.[5]This notonly poses a public health threat, but it can also have devastating consequences for animal health, as the

recent Foot and Mouth disease outbreak illustrates.Ensuring the safety of our food through the prevention, monitoring and treatment of foodborne diseasesis a pivotal responsibility of the veterinary profession.

In the EU, there were a small number of diseases which had a high incidence rate, most notablyGiardiasis, Campylobacteriosis and Salmonellosis, a range of less common diseases such as Listeriosisand a further range of much less common diseases such as cholera or variant Creutzfeld-Jakob disease(Table 1).[15]

Table 1 - Number and case rate of several zoonotic diseases in the UK and in the EU27 for 2009[16]

DiseaseUK

(nr of conrmedcases)

EU-27(nr of conrmed

cases)

EU-27Case rate

(per 100,000 inhabitants)

Anthrax 10 55 (21 deaths) 0.004

Botulism 13 132 0.03

Brucellosis 17 401 0.08

Campylobacteriosis 65,043 198,683 53.07

Cholera 16 19 0.06

Cryptosporidiosis 5,587 8,016 2.74

Echinoccoccosis 7 789 0.18

E.Coli 1,339 3,573 0.86

Giardiasis 3,719 16,239 5.6

Leptosirosis 53 544 0.14Listeriosis 235 1,654 No data

Salmonelliosis 10,479 108,615 No data

Toxoplasmosisi 10 26 No data

Trichinellosis 0 750 0.15

Tularaemia 0 825 No data

Variant Creutzfeld-Jakob diseaseii 3 8 0.01 per 1,000,000

Yersiniosis 61 7,626 2.02

Campylobacteriosis is undoubtedly the most common zoonotic disease in the EU. Britain has

been seeing a steady increase in the incidence of serious gastrointestinal complications related toCampylobacter (8% increase from 2009 to 2010)[17], with an associated annual cost of at least 538m tothe country.[18]Investment in research for this area, however, has not exceeded 4m combined betweenthe three major public funders (Defra, BBSRC and Food Standards Agency (FSA) data from 2008).

Salmonelliosis costs the UK an excess of 14m per annum (1,225 per reported case)[19]and it isinteresting to notice that whereas nancial losses associated with zoonotic disease outbreaks in the food-chain are normally measured in the tens of millions or even billion pounds, research investment is limitedto the low millions. For example, at the height of the BSE crisis, in the nancial year of 1995/1996 alone,more than 3.5 billion were spent in the UK to control and deal with the disease,[1, 20]yet public fundingfor research in the area that same year was limited to less than 10m. In fact, the combined publicinvestment in research in Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in the last 19 years (312m)is less than 9% of the costs associated with tackling the disease in 1995 alone.[1](Figure 2)

i Due to the change in the EU case denition for toxoplasmosis in 2008, only congenital cases are required to be reported from2009 onwards. These numbers therefore, report data


10/32

10

Government expenditure on spongiform encephalopathy-related research

Figure 2- UK Government expenditure on spongiform encephalopathy-related research 1986/87-2002/03 (in 000) [1-2]

Other major losses associated with food animals are known. For example, the Foot and Mouth epidemicin 2001 cost the UK 8bn in just 7.5 months and resulted in the slaughter of 6.7 million animals. [21]

Additionally, the economic consequences of food safety scares can be disproportionately largecompared to actual risks to consumers,[5]as exemplied by the egg salmonella crisis of the late 1980sand the E coli outbreak in 2011. With the BSE outbreak, for example, the meat trade and the farmingindustry were affected for several years after the epidemic was controlled, as the international marketsstruggled to regain their condence in British produce. It is also important to remember the number ofanimal lives lost, which, admittedly, should not only be measured in nancial terms.

Through veterinary research and surveillance, a reduction of 99.9% in the number of reported BSEcases was achieved in a period of less than 15 years, but care should be taken in declaring the diseaseeradicated. In fact, important questions such as the origin of the disease remain unanswered and ifrecrudescence of BSE is to be avoided, research priorities will need to consider tackling the uncertainties.

As one epidemic seems to come closer to an end, others emerge. In 2010, 31,679 animals wereslaughtered due to Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) and its worth noting that numbers keep increasing (7.5%over a year) despite the fact that the number of cattle in Great Britain has been falling (13% in the last 13years). One of the key challenges in controlling bTB lies in detecting infection in individual live animals,as infectious animals are asymptomatic for long periods of time. Current methods of testing rely on theimmunological responseifrom the animal but there is reason to believe that detecting the causativebacteria directly might improve detection rates, avoid false negatives from animals which have developed

immunological resistance and consequently help tackle infection in other animals. Such tests are not yetavailable for widespread application, but as one of the countries most interested in nding a solution,Britain should lead on this technology.

The Bluetongue virus is yet another example of an animal disease with potential disastrousconsequences to the economy, the welfare of animals and the safety of the food-chain. It is estimated thatthe success of the Bluetongue vaccination programme in 2008 has saved 460m and 10,000 jobs in theUK, not to mention the lives of many animals.[22]

In order to address the major challenges involved in keeping the food-chain safe for human consumption,the food system needs to be at the forefront of technological development. At this point, and according tothe Government Ofce for Science the potential costs of NOT utilising new technology must be takeninto account.[5]Mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that the potential dangers are known

and that sufcient data can support the response to disease outbreaks. These mechanisms need to beconcerted and cross-disciplinary.

i ie measuring its response when it is infected with small doses of the bacterium.


11/32

11

1.4 Impact on human and animal welfare

1.4.1 Farm animal welfare

Whilst most European citizens list the presence of residues in crops as their top food-related concern, UKcitizens are most worried about the welfare of farm animals.[23]

Despite making the headlines less often than zoonotic disease outbreaks, issues regarding animal

welfare have a profound impact on the productivity and sustainability of animal farming and are stronglydependent on veterinary research.

In a world where several billion people are striving to move up the food-chain by adopting diets withhigher animal protein content, land and water productivity need to be signicantly raised if animals are tobe reared more efciently.

Emerging economies like India and China are now taking the lead worldwide in the production of animal-derived products, but concerns regarding standards of animal welfare in these countries still persist.

Indias dairy herd, the largest milk producing herd in the world, is also highly inefcient. Each animalis estimated to produce four to ve litres a day which is around a quarter of the values for an averagewestern herd.[24] China is the largest pig producing country in the world, but its welfare practices arequite far from UK standards, which implies that a large part of the pig meat consumed worldwide derives

from animals that have been reared in less than ideal conditions.[25]

Welfare management has direct consequences on animal behaviour, welfare, health and productivity,and on the protability of animal-derived produce. However, the issue should also be framed in the widercontext of public health, environmental protection and food security.

On the food security perspective, intensive farming systems which disregard animal welfare can alsoobstruct equitable access to food, fail to detect public health threats (or indeed enhance them) andcontribute to regional pollution by inadequate management of animal waste, for example.

There is also a large body of evidence conrming that chronic stress makes animals more prone todisease, which might ultimately result in higher levels of anti-microbial resistance by leading to moreantibiotic treatments being prescribed.

Welfare management can also have direct impact on addressing climate change issues. Methaneemissions from cattle are responsible for about 80 million metric tonnes of greenhouse emissions (GHE),which accounts for about 28% of global methane emissions from all human-related activities. i

It is widely accepted that welfare management can help reduce this number. Several practices havealready been identied to have a positive impact in improving production efciency and reducinggreenhouse gas emissions, such as improving grazing management, adding certain nutrients to the dietsof the animals, providing appropriate water sources and protecting water quality and improving geneticsand reproductive efciency, just to name a few.[26]

Careful consideration of these issues by health professionals, veterinary researchers and informedconsumers is now contributing to a re-denition of quality of animal products to include factors such ashygiene/safety, nutrition, traceability and quality of the production environment. Meat quality is therefore

much more than a mere checklist of physicochemical/organoleptic characteristics.Failure to address welfare issues will signicantly affect the competitiveness and economical viability ofthe food industry and the balance of ecosystems.

Veterinary research treads a ne line between productivity and welfare, by rst identifying the issuesthat need to be tackled in order to produce (and protect) healthy, productive animals which exhibitnormal behaviour, and to then develop infrastructures and technology that can assist that productionin economically efcient terms. Its impact is so deeply embedded in the food-chain that it becomesextremely hard to quantify.

i http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html#1


12/32

12

1.4.2 Companion animals and their owners

Other welfare issues arise beyond those related to food-producing animals. Companion animals and alsolaboratory animals are increasingly dependent on our ability to understand and promote their wellbeing.

Ethical debates regarding the use of animals for food and research can be enlightened by developingbetter assessment and management of pain and distress. Social issues related to irresponsible dogownership, for example, can be enlightened with research on canine behaviour and appropriate

education of owners.

Research funding often does not reect the vital impact that companion animals have in the physical andmental health of their owners and of the social framework around them.

In England alone, there were over 5,000 hospital admissions and a 3.3 million spend by the NHSresulting from dog-related injuries in one single year (2009/2010). Beyond this cost, it is estimated that2.8 million livestock are attacked each year by dogs.[27]

In order to achieve a necessary level of understanding, research needs to be conducted on the nutritionneeds, metabolism, and safety of food and feeds and on behaviour/environmental conditions that mightimprove their wellbeing.

On another level, research into the behavioural and training needs of companion animals and service

animals will increase their quality of life and enhance their performance as assistants, protectors and lifesavers.

Animals are essential in areas as diverse as herding, search and rescue, drug and chemical detection,police and military assistance and support for people with special needs.[28]There is also sufcientevidence to suggest that companion animals have a direct impact on the life expectancy andpsychological wellbeing of the human population, positively affecting the wider social framework of theircaregivers.[29-30]

1.5 Impact on wildlife

The notion that man is responsible for the extinction of many wildlife species (ie non-domestic species)is now widespread and several high prole public awareness campaigns have been trying to addresswildlife conservation issues, warning that simple and quick solutions are not easy to nd.

It is accepted that multidisciplinary teams are best placed to tackle the challenges in conservation, andthat these must include veterinary surgeons, equipped with sound scientic knowledge.

The variety of species that veterinary surgeons are called upon to study, protect and care for is vast andonly professionals with access to the best research can truly full their role.

From treating animals that have been injured as a consequence of their interactions with humans, toassisting reproduction of endangered species, the role of a veterinary surgeon in this area is varied andchallenging. It also involves studying, surveying and controlling infectious diseases in wildlife.

Of the estimated 800 species that have become extinct over the last ve centuries, circa 4% have beenlost to infectious disease, but this number is expected to increase as contact between wildlife anddomesticated species increases.

Currently, 16,928 species are threatened with extinction, including nearly one-third of amphibians, morethan one in eight birds and nearly a quarter of mammals. [31]Failure to intervene swiftly and to identify thebest (science-based) interventions can result in disastrous consequences.

Besides disease, wildlife is also threatened by interaction with populations.

The cohabitation of humans and wildlife is mostly peaceful but can occasionally result in conictinginterests. As the dominant species, human interests have historically taken precedence over wildlifepreservation but the last decades have seen a shift of attitude towards a more responsible sharing ofnatural resources and the protection of ecosystems.

In the UK, individuals are free to manage wildlife within the law, which includes putting in place avoidancemeasures when minor conict occurs, and lethal or non-lethal measures when the conict is intolerable

and unavoidable, in which cases special licences are necessary.


13/32

13

The conservation of vulnerable or rare species and habitats, exploitation of wildlife resources and thecontrol of species to address impacts on the economy, public health and safety are the main drivers inwildlife management, an area which heavily relies on the input of veterinary surgeons. At governmentlevel, research on the issue is managed by Defra, with a nominal baseline of 530,000 (for 2010/2011).[32]

Recent discussions on the role that badgers play in spreading bTB illustrate capably the importance ofhaving a solid body of evidence coming from good quality research on wildlife. Similar issues exist with

foxes and the spread of rabies and Echinococcus Multiloccularis.Expanding human populations may result in unsustainable demands for food and water supplies,whereas habitat destruction places humans and animals in greater proximity and increases the risk ofinfectious disease within and between species.

The impact that these factors may have on our quality of life is clear and, irrespective of the concernswe should have for other plant and animal species, it is time to accept that the healthy biodiversity of theplanet is also essential for our health.


14/32

14

2. Veterinary research in the UK:

facts and gures2.1 The quality of the UKs veterinary research base

Although many innovations that we champion arose from garages or university dorms (the homecomputer and Facebook), in this age the ones we really need () require huge sums of money andresources. How can we encourage the innovations we need to happen? (Tim Harford, 2011)

The UK is well known for producing high quality research and for having highly efcient researchers.[33]For example, it is the country that spends the lowest percentage of GDP on R&D in the G7, but it stillmanages to be the most productive in terms of scientic publication (papers per GDP and papers perresearcher). Worldwide, it ranks second in terms of scientic impact (citations per paper), which is aremarkable position.[33]

Studies have shown that the literature of science is a reasonably good indicator of a countrys level ofthe participation in the worldwide enterprise of scientic research.[34]This means that the quantication ofthe research output (as indexed by databases such as the Web of Knowledge and Scimago) can givean idea of the UK research capacity in veterinary sciences.

Previous bibliometric studies have found that veterinary sciences in the UK perform remarkably well whenbenchmarked against other countries.[35]

Globally, papers in the veterinary sciencesitend to be published in specialised journals with impactfactors (IF) mostly between 0.2 and 1.5 (with the highest IF reaching 4). For the category Dentistry, OralSurgery and Oral Medicineii, which is often taken as the best comparative subject area, this value isslightly higher ([1-2] with the highest IF reaching 4) suggesting that dentistry tends to be slightly moreregarded scientically or simply that it reaches a wider audience. For the category Medicine - Researchand Experimental, journal IFs can reach up to 13, with the majority of publications sitting in the [2-4]interval, which is, expectedly, higher than both the disciplines mentioned before.

The number of citable papers in the category veterinary sciences published by researchers with a UK

address was evaluated from the period 1996-2010 (Figure 3). The data show that there is a somewhatcyclical variation in publication rates with a large increase of paper publication (20-30% growth) beingfollowed by two or three declining years. This cyclical pattern can be a statistical artice derived fromthe data or changes in classication of papers by the Web of Knowledge and the Scopus database.Nonetheless, over the last third of the data, the rate of growth is clearly positive reaching 1,080 citabledocuments in 2011, equally distributed between small animals, food animals and equine (food animalsgaining the highest number of cites).

A similar trend occurs for Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine. In particular from 2003, the rateof growth for both subject areas shows a very similar pattern, suggesting that in terms of productivityand volume of research output, the veterinary sciences are at least on par with other national researchareas of similar size. This is further conrmed by the data in Table 2, which shows both subjects havecomparable values in terms ofh-index, citations per document and relative contribution to regional and

world publication output (% region and % world, respectively). The degree of international collaborationis also similar across both disciplines (% of documents with more than one country listed in the authorsaddresses).

i Veterinary sciences covers resources concerning both the research and clinical aspects of animal health, diseases, injuries,nutrition, reproduction, and public health. This category includes materials on companion, farm, zoo, laboratory, wild, and aquaticanimals.(Web of Knowledge).

ii Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine covers resources on the anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and pathology of the teethand oral cavity. This category includes specic resources on periodontal disease, dental implants, oral and maxillofacial surgery,oral pathology, and oral surgery. Coverage also includes resources on community dentistry, public health dentistry, and pediatricdentistry.(Web of Knowledge).


15/32

15

Publication output

Figure 3 Comparative distribution of publication output during 1997-2010, and respective % growth in publication betweenUK veterinary sciences and dentistry (data from the Scopus database, Scopus SJR - SCImago Journal & Country Rank). www.scimagojr.com

Table 2 Analysis of UK bibliometric parameters for dentistry and Veterinary Sciences.Source: ScopusSJR - SCImago Journal & Country Rank. www.scimagojr.com

Parameters (1996-2011) Dentistry Veterinary sciences

H-index 92 90

Documents 8,069 17,734

Citable documents (excludes letters, corrections, etc) 7,539 (93%) 14,370 (81%)

Citations 101,790 154,310

Self-citations 21,946 (22%) 44,246 (29%)

Citations per document 12.6 8.7Uncited documents (% average) 16% 32%

International collaboration (% average) 34% 33%

Region (% average) 28 27

World (% average) 8 8

Internationally, a comparison was made with the US, Brazil and China which constitute respectively ahighly regarded scientic power and two emerging competitors. These are large countries, and samplesize is therefore not comparable with the UK, making the number of papers a less valid parameter tomeasure statistically. The average growth of publication output per year between countries of differentsize can then be used as an indicator.


16/32

16

Data mined from the Web Of Knowledge and the Scopus database showed that the average yearlygrowth in publication numbers for the UK and the USA (with an average growth 6 and 3%, respectively)is quite modest when compared to China and Brazil (average growth 34 and 31%, respectively), whichconrms the status of the latter countries as emerging scientic nations in the veterinary eld.

Another way to analyse the research output is to focus on efciency. The number of times a scienticpaper is cited by a subsequent publication can give a measure of its impact and inuence. Therefore,

measuring the citations per produced paper (minus the number of self-cites) can be a useful markerwhen measuring a large with a small sample.[36]

In Figure 4, where the result of such analysis is plotted, it can be seen that the UK is the most efcientcountry of the sample in terms of citations per paper. It follows that, even though British veterinaryresearchers publish fewer papers than their counterparts in the USA and Brazil, the number of citationsper paper continues to be higher for British veterinary research than for any other country. This indicatesthat, whilst the number of papers published by UK researchers is considerably smaller, their quality ishigher (eg in 2008 for 866 citable papers from the UK there were 2,530 US and 1,264 Brazilian papers).

Research impact by citations

Figure 4 Average citation per paper for publications in the Veterinary sciences category, originating from the UK, Brazil and the

USA (data mined from the Web of Knowledge and Scimago Scopus)

Worldwide, the quality of veterinary research can be compared with other countries using theh-indexranking system. Originally, the concept of theh-index was developed to measure the scholarly publishingproductivity and impact of individual researchers through a single indicator. It became widely popular forthe simplicity of the concept, and its use was extended to research groups, institutions and journals andcountries.[37]

From Table 3 it can be seen that the UK is remarkably well positioned in the country ranking for veterinaryresearch. So far, the most highly cited papers in the subject-area of veterinary science in the UK[38-39]arerelated to TSEs, in particular research on the variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.


17/32

17

Table 3 Country ranking for the subject area of veterinary sciences, for the period 1996-2011,ranked byh-index. (Source: SCImago. (2007). SJR SCImago Journal & Country Rankwww.scimagojr.com)

Ranking Country Citable documents Citations perdocument h-index

1 United States 38,831 9.35 105

2 United Kingdom 14,370 9.54 90

3 Canada 6,701 9.76 71

4 France 7,275 7.36 70

5 Netherlands 4,479 10.89 67

6 Australia 5,359 9.77 63

7 Germany 11,653 5.61 63

8 Denmark 2,486 13.31 60

9 Spain 5,066 10.72 60

10 Italy 4,751 9.92 55

11 Belgium 4,127 8.23 5212 Japan 5,555 7.61 52

13 Sweden 2,254 12.17 52

14 Switzerland 3,485 8.96 51

15 Norway 1,494 12.22 48

16 New Zealand 1,946 10.17 48

17 Brazil 10,393 5.98 45

18 Ireland 1,339 8.95 41

19 South Africa 1,939 7.29 40

20 China 3,129 10.16 39

21 Argentina 1,330 8.44 36

22 Czech Republic 1,779 6.62 35

23 South Korea 2,087 9.84 35

24 Austria 1,841 5.91 33

25 Hungary 1,996 4.19 33

26 India 13,340 1.72 33

27 Mexico 1,700 7.99 33

28 Poland 6,144 2.78 31

29 Turkey 6,626 2.88 27

30 Iran 2,125 4.17 23

A more in-depth analysis should look at the publication habits of veterinary researchers (domesticor international journals), specialist areas of strength (veterinary parasitology, toxicology, etc), highlyproductive institutions and highly productive researchers. This will allow a reection on the types ofresearch model that are working well and those which can be improved on.

It is nonetheless clear that the veterinary sciences are well ranked nationally and internationally, interms of efciency and impact. It should be noted, however, that the global landscape of research isuid, dynamic and intensely competitive. Other countries are outpacing the UK in terms of growth innumbers of researchers and spending in research. The UK is well-positioned, but its ability to sustainits leadership position is far from inevitable.[33]


18/32

18

2.2 Investment in veterinary research

2.2.1 Overall values

In 1997, the total identiable investment in animal health and welfare research in the public sector andthe universities was reported to be between 92m and 108m (corrected for ination).[2]Government andresearch councils such as the BBSRC were then acknowledged as the main funders, with some nancial

contributions also being made by a variety of charities, especially for niche areas of research. A partialvalue of 62m to 77m was also found, excluding the contribution of the Higher Education FundingCouncil (HEFC) in supporting the research infrastructure in the veterinary schools and from animalwelfare societies or pharmaceutical companies.

An informal survey carried out by the RCVS for the purposes of this report has attempted to draw acomparison between the values of investment in veterinary research then (1996/97) and in 2009/10.

Unfortunately, following up the numbers accounted in the Selborne report proved challenging due anumber of factors, chief amongst which was the lack of a common denition for veterinary researchbetween the funding bodies over time. For example, in the 14 years that separates the Selborne reportand this document, the BBSRC has widened its denition of veterinary research beyond studies inanimal health and welfare to include underpinning research (ie research directly related to animaldiseases but not involving the animals directly). This inclusion has obvious effects on the overall

numbers, largely contributing to the apparent increase of 26m to 27m in the UK investment inveterinary research over the last 14 years.iAn administrative change, rather than a true investment, istherefore responsible for the numbers below (details can be found in the further information section).Further to the administrative difculties expressed above, the Selborne Report does not list the differentlevels of investment for each of the commissioners of research, which makes some of the values notcomparable.

Table 4 Investment in veterinary researchTotal and partial estimated values accounting and NOT accounting for the signicant changes in BBSRCfunding. Individual values can be consulted in the Further information section of this document. All thevalues presented are corrected for 2011 ination (1996: av 2.9%/year, 2009: av 4.9%/year).

1996/1997 2009/2010

Partialii(Selborne parameters) 62.0m - 77.0m Not comparable

Partialiii(calculated by this report) 77.5m 102.6m - 103.7m

Partial (not counting BBSRC) 60.4m 57.1m - 58.2m

Totaliv (Selborne parameters) 92m - 108m Not comparable

Total (calculated by this report) Not comparable 126.8m - 127.9m

Discounting the effect of both the administrative changes of BBSRC and the values that could not becompared due to unavailability of data, a rough estimate can be advanced in that the investment in

veterinary research has suffered a decrease of 5.5% in the last 14 years, even in the face of increasingchallenges related to veterinary science.

i See detailed analysis of BBSRC funding in Further information Annex a.ii Partial investment is limited to the investment made by the BBSRC, Defra, RESAS, Wellcome Trust and the industrial funding

bodies.iii Not including the values for RESAS, which were not published or available for the year 1996/97.iv Total investment according to Selbourne parametres includes HEFC funding, animal welfare societies and pharmaceutical

companies. This last value was estimated by the report on informed assumptions.


19/32

19

2.2.2 Academic research

Another way to analyse the investment trend in veterinary science over the last 14 years is to study thevalue of research grants and contracts received by UK universities undertaking veterinary research(Figures 5 and 6). It should be noted, however, that veterinary research happens beyond the universityenvironment and thus these numbers do not represent the total (absolute) amount spent in UK veterinaryscience. Nonetheless, since universities are still thought to constitute the largest supplier of research,

they are expected to take up a large part of the funding available for veterinary research, thereforeconstituting a representative sample of the trends in research investment over the last 14 years.

Funding in veterinary research (academia)

Figure 5- Research grants and contracts income reported by UK universities by cost centre veterinary sciences from 1996/1997to 2009/2010 (source: HESA). All values are corrected for 2011 ination as reported by the Bank of England.

Percentage growth in grants and income

Figure 6 - Percent growth of UK universities income in research grants and contracts in the veterinary sciences, taken from thevalues of research grants and contracts income. (Raw data sourced from HESA)

Both Figures 5 and 6 show that the last decade has seen a large variation with regards to the amountof funding available for academic veterinary research. Whilst any growth in investment is generallywelcomed by the providers of research, having such a large variation in income can place a big strainon resources, hinder the establishment of a solid research infrastructure and compromise the long-termsustainability of the UKs veterinary research environment.


20/32

20

The research income for universities can be further analysed in terms of the type of funder (Figure 7).

Figure 7- Research grant income breakdown by type for the veterinary science cost centre for 1996/97 and 2009/10 (raw datasourced from HESA). Values corrected for 2011 ination (average value 2.9 and 4.9% respectively). Notes: UK industry refers toUK-based industry, commerce and public corporations; UK Central Gov refers to UK central government, local authorities, healthand hospital authorities. EU Other includes EU charities and EU industry.

In the last 14 years the research councils have established themselves as the main funders of academicveterinary research, now distributing 42% of total funding. In fact, the 22m increase investment inveterinary academic research during this time has been largely shouldered by the research councils,with the remaining contributors maintaining or reducing their investment in university-based veterinaryresearch.

This increase can partly be attributed once again to the variation in the denition of veterinaryresearch across the different funders, but factors related to the changes in the funding of the researchinfrastructure, which are now somewhat included in the grants and contracts, should not be overlooked.

It cannot be denied that the last ve years have witnessed major economic pressures and it is likely thatthis might have played a part in discouraging investment in research. The charity sector seems to havebeen particularly hit by the recession and at present some institutions which were contacted in our surveyare gradually suspending or dramatically decreasing their research investment.

2.2.3 Defra Animal Health and Welfare Research

Outside the academic environment, a considerable amount of veterinary research happens under thebudget of Defra. Between 1996/97 and 2009/10, their Animal Health and Welfare Research (AHWR)programme has seen a budget decrease of 10%, but it is unclear if the nancial repercussions of closingdown (or limiting the functions of) the National Animal Institutes are fully reected in the publishednumbers.

Figure 8 -Distribution of spend in the Animal Health and Welfare research programmes in 1997 (left) and in 2009/10 (right),

corrected for 2011 ination. Source: [10]


21/32

21

Interestingly, an analysis of the spending distribution in Defras AHWR programmes reects the changingnature of the scientic challenges to which veterinary research has had to respond in the last decades(Fig. 8). As expected, in 1997, at the height of the BSE crisis, most funding was allocated to research inTSEs (such as BSE and Scrapies), which was then halved in 2010, when the threat was considered undercontrol. Investment in research regarding bTB, on the contrary, has been almost doubled in view of therecent bTB outbreaks. These changes in distribution seem to indicate a reactive approach to veterinaryresearch, rather than a proactive strategic outlook.

Research in the veterinary sciences constitutes approximately 20% of Defras overall R&D budget.Considering the high nancial impact of animal health and welfare in the countrys economy, it can beargued that this value might not adequately reect the risks associated with animal disease and thesustainability of the food-chain.

Perhaps more concerning is the simultaneous disinvestment in agricultural research as a whole: between1986 and 1997 circa 45% of Defras budget allocated to R&D was cut, prompting widespread concernin the agricultural sector.[40]Since then, the disinvestment in agricultural research has continued, eventhough it has been more gradual,[41]with cuts of 20% reported for Defras R&D programme for the period2001-2010,ia large part of which corresponded to the AHWR programme.

Since the risks associated with animal health and welfare are demonstrably so high, a proactive approach

towards animal-related issues would see an appropriate investment in veterinary research being made,which would allow (1) the right measures to be quickly taken in times of emergency, (2)preventionoffood scares minimizing consumer panic and consequently human, animal and economical losses, (3)maximisation of resources, increasing the productivity and sustainability of the food-chain, (4) adequatestrategies of co-existence with wildlife, protecting ecosystems and avoiding remediation work, and (5)preventionof issues related to companion animals, whilst maximising their enormous economic andsocial potential.

i Source: Science, engineering and technology indicators from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.


22/32

22

3. Investing in the veterinary sciences3.1. The agri-food sector

The agri-food sector employs one in ve European citizens and generates 6% of the EU-27 GDP,[15]11%of which is attributed to the UKi.

In Britain, around 13% of the UKs workforce is involved in the process of getting food from farm to fork,generating in the process around 88 billion p.a. to the economy (7% GDP).[25, 42-43]At European level, theUK is well positioned as a livestock producer (see Table 5) and is considered to be especially productivein manufacturing and selling food (wholesale).[43]

Table 5 Total number of livestock and total slaughtered production in the UK:comparison with EU average values and European ranking (Dec 2010 ) No eurostat data for **

Total livestock(million)

Production [15]

(1,000 tonnes weight)

UK[44] EU-27[15] UK EU-27UKs position

(in EU-27)

Cattle and Calves 9.9 88 925 7,918 4th

Pigs 4.4 161 774 22,011 8th

Sheep and lambs 21.3 95 281 725 1st

Poultry ** ** 1571 11,651 2nd

In real terms, the price of food has fallen over the last twenty years.[45]The average UK household spendin food in 2008 (9% of disposable income) was almost half of what it had been in 1984 (16%).[12]The roleof technological innovation in these numbers needs to be acknowledged, as advancements in animalhealth and welfare can quickly lead to a more productive food-chain.

However, despite being a key player in the European agri-food market and having technically observed adecease in food prices, some families in the UK have witnessed a loss in food purchase power, since theincomes of the poorest have not accompanied the rise in food prices (33% increase in food prices since1998 which is three times higher than France or Germany compared to a 22% increase in income).[43]

Against what seems to be the trend in the rest of the world, countries like Brazil and China havesignicantly invested in their domestic agricultural research base (0.7bn and 1.1bn respectively). As aresult, Brazil is today one of the worlds largest agricultural exporters iiand China is taking seven peopleout of poverty for every 900 invested in agricultural R&D. Indeed, a study of the impact of agriculturalresearch in developed and developing countries indicated economic rates of return of around 40%.[5]The US Department of Agriculture, for example, reports that each US dollar invested in agriculturalresearch generates $20 back to the economy.[46]

Veterinarians are involved in advising or administering 3% of the total expenditure on the agri-food sectorbut their impact is felt far and wide over the food-chain.[15]Their clinical skills, combined with a profoundknowledge about the animal in its wider ecosystem, support the decisions of all the players in the food-chain from farmers to policy makers and food retailers. Their breadth of knowledge therefore needs tobe encouraged and supported.

The economic importance of veterinary science, however, goes far beyond the agricultural activity.

i In turnover (Eurostat data from 2007).ii Brazil is already the fastest growing agricultural sector by far, predicted to grow by over 40% until 2019, when compared to the2007-09 base period.


23/32

23

3.2 The companion animal market

Further to farm animals and the economic wealth generated by animals for human consumption, twofast growing markets assure an estimated 80bn turnover in Europe alone: the pet food and equinesectors (Table 6).

Table 6 Economic impact of industries related to animal care

Market value Jobs

UK EU-27 UK EU-27

Agri-food Sector [15, 43] 85 bn GVA(7% GDP)

751 bn GVA(6% GDP)

3.5 million 48 million

Pet food[47-48] 2.05 bn(market value)

20.5 bn(annual turnover)

ca.8,000(direct employment)

50,000(direct employment)

Equine industry[49-52] 4.20 bn(annual turnover)

Up to 59 bn7

(estimated)70,000

(direct employment)400,000

(direct employment)

As the social fabric of developed nations changes, and as numbers of people delaying marriage andchildren increases, many pet owners are elevating the place that their animals have in their lives.[53]Companion animals are increasingly being seen by their owners as members of their immediate family,and as such, deserving of the same quality of food and health-care. Consequently, a multimillion poundindustry has developed to support this growing need.

In the UK, the pet food market caters for about 20 million pets i, which are present in 46% of households.Despite a recession economy, this industry has been growing steadily: in 2010 the overall growth of theindustry was of around 2%, with 0.3% yearly growth[48]in the volume of product sold. iiIn the wider EU-27 context, 196 million pets are being provided for by 650 companies, which not only provide jobs andwealth (see Table 6) but also purchase 2.75 million tonnes of agricultural by-productsiiithus adding valueto material that would otherwise have to be disposed of.[47]

Veterinary research supports the sector in two ways:

by building up the knowledge base required by the industry to create new products that can improvezpet health and comfort, thus responding to the market;

by carrying out inspections on the raw materials, as required by current legislation,z [48]preventingdisease outbreaks (such as avian inuenza or Foot and Mouth disease) which could signicantlyaffect the market, jeopardizing animal welfare and peoples livelihood;

3.3 The equine market

Another highly performing sector is the equine market. Constituting one of the only examples of growingindustries in rural areas today, the equine industry is the largest spender in the British countryside andemploys directly and indirectly over a quarter million people. Equine sports are popular (second only

to football in the UK) and highly protable: in the EU, a job is created for every 3-10 horses, and eachanimal provides an annual turnover of 5,000 to 12,000.[52]In the UK alone, the industry generatesaround 325m for the Government in taxation revenue.

Given the high performance of the sector, it is of no surprise that the healthcare of the circa one millionhorses and ponies in the UK is of critical importance. Appropriate equine veterinary care helps to secureBritains highly regarded position in the international racing market, a fact that is illustrated by itssupply of top ranked thoroughbred racehorses (16% market worldwide).iv

i Excluding sh.ii In certain sectors, both the premium and value end of the market have risen with values reaching 19% growth in certain products

(dog treats).iii 500,000 tonnes of which sourced in the UK.iv Veterinary fees are estimated to amount to 254m per annum (74% of total expenditure).


24/32

24

3.4 Aquaculture

Aquaculture plays a key role in UK and worldwide food security, providing high quality protein andlipids essential for a healthy human diet[54]. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nationsprovides a clear picture of the importance of aquaculture[55]. Against a backdrop of declining wild shstocks aquaculture has been one of the fastest growing food production sectors for more than 40 years.It is the only food production sector growing faster than human population and provides 47% of the

aquatic food in the human diet. Globally aquaculture produced more than 59.9 million tonnes of foodfor humans in 2010 with a value of more than 77.1 billion and aquatic products are the worlds largesttraded food commodity. In the UK, salmon farming alone produced more than 154,164 tonnes in 2010with a worldwide retail value of over 1 billion, making it Scotlands largest agricultural export and a verysignicant UK agricultural export[56].

Fish, as cold-blooded animals, have very efcient food conversion (


25/32

25

4. ConclusionsVeterinary research - in the UK and elsewhere has already been directly responsible for major scienticachievements such as the global eradication of rinderpest, control of Foot and Mouth diease, control ofBluetongue virus, reduction in salmonella food-borne infections, the rst attenuated coccidiosis vaccine,the production of the rst vaccine for a retrovirus (Feline Leukaemia Virus) and, more recently, the rstrecombinant viral vector vaccine to control both myxomatosis and rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus(RHDV). Many other examples of seminal contributions to the improvement of animal and human wellbeing exist, yet many more challenges remain to be addressed.

Animal diseases such as bTB are responsible for major economical losses every year and a vaccine isstill unavailable. Campylobacter, for example, despite being the bacterial genus responsible for most ofthe acute bacterial enteritis in the Western world, is yet to be fully studied in terms of its epidemiology andpathophysiology.

It is clear from this paper that the pivotal role of veterinary research in a countrys economy can beeasily argued. From a purely economic perspective, assuring the proliferation of knowledge in theanimal sciences can enhance the health and welfare of livestock, secure jobs in the farming, equine andcompanion animal sectors and produce signicant wealth for the British economy. However, perhaps asimportant as the direct generation of wealth and jobs, the veterinary sciences can contribute to shield

these important sectors against unpredictable nancial losses arising from disease outbreaks whoseconsequences go far beyond the nancial costs.

Further investment in veterinary research would not only help secure the UKs leading position in one ofits most successful scientic areas, but also potentially support the economy at a time where competition both in economic and in scientic terms is erce from emerging economies across the globe.

Our increasing interdependence with animals and their products may well be the single most critical riskfactor to our health and well-being with regard to infectious diseases.[14]Acknowledging that profoundand complex interdependence needs to be translated in visible support for the veterinary profession andveterinary research.

5. AcknowledgementsThis report was drafted by Dr Rita Jorge, for the Research Subcommittee of the Royal College ofVeterinary Surgeons, but has beneted from the generous contributions of time of many people. TheResearch Subcommittee kindly thanks Professor James F Turnbull from the Institute of Aquaculture atUniversity of Stirling and Professor Tom Humphrey from the Institute of Infection and Global Health atthe University of Liverpool for drafting the sections corresponding to aquaculture and avian veterinaryscience respectively. Professor Jonathan Elliot from the Royal Veterinary College was instrumental inobtaining data for the research funding section.

At the time of writing, the Research Subcommittee had the following composition: Professor DuncanMaskell, Professor Mick Bailey, Professor Sheila Crispin, Professor Julie Fitzpatrick, Dr Michael Francis,

Professor Robin Franklin, Professor Dirk Pfeiffer and Professor The Lord Trees.


26/32

26

6. References[1] J. B. John Pattison, Colin Blakemore FRS, Julia Goodfellow , Howard Dalton UK Strategy for Research and

Development on Human and Animal Health Aspects of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies 2005-

2008, Defra, London, 2005Medical Research Council, http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.

htm?d=MRC002112.

[2] Selborne, Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Veterinary Research, Royal College of Veterinary

Surgeons London, 1997.

[3] P. Yam, Obama spotlights science in his State of the Union address, Retrieved in 2011, http://blogs.

scienticamerican.com/observations/2011/01/26/obama-spotlights-science-in-his-state-of-the-union-address/.

[4] CASE, Key Economic Argument, Retrieved in 2011, http://blog.sciencecampaign.org.uk/?page_id=2086.

[5] The Future of Food and Farming Final Project Report, BIS, London, 2010The Government Ofce for

Science http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/food-and-farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-

farming-report.pdf .

[6] P. V. Wayne Jones, Alexis Fournier, Linda Fulponi, Cline Giner, Pete Liapis, Garry Smith, Gregoire Tallard

and Shinichi Taya, Alexander Sarris, Merritt Cluff, Holger Matthey, Abdolreza Abbasssian, El Mamoun

Amrouk, Pedro Arias, Concepcion Calpe, C. F. Joshua Dewbre, Adam Prakash, Matthieu Stigler, Peter

Thoenes, and, D. Traor,OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2010 - 2019, 2010, http://www.agri-outlook.org/

dataoecd/13/13/45438527.pdf.

[7] P. K. Thornton, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2010, 365, 2853-2867.

[8] M. W. T. Rosegrant, P.K., ID21 insights 2008.

[9] Improving The Quality and Markeatable Value of Meat and Milk, Defra, London, 2003.

[10] Review of the Animal Welfare Research Programme 2005-2010, Defra, London, 2010,http://www.Defra.gov.

uk/publications/les/pb13556-welfare-research-review-110128.pdf.

[11] D. S. Barling, Rosalind; Lang, Tim, Rethinking Britains Food Security, Centre for Food Policy London, 2008,

http://les.uniteddiversity.com/Food/rethinking_britains_food_security.pdf .

[12] Food Matters: Towards a Strategy for the 21st Century, Cabinet Ofce, London, 2008Crown

Copyright,http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetofce.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/

food_policy.aspx.

[13] Food: An Analysis of the Issues Revision D, Cabinet Ofce, London, 2008Crown Copyright,

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetofce.gov.uk/media/cabinetofce/strategy/assets/food/food_analysis.pdf.

[14] L. J. King, L. R. Anderson, et al.,JAVMA-J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2008, 233, 259-261.

[15] Food: from farm to fork statistics, EuroStat, Health and Food Statistics Luxembourg, 2011,

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-30-08-339/EN/KS-30-08-339-EN.PDF.

[16] G. F. G. Spiteri,Annual Epidemiological Report 2011. Reporting on 2009 surveillance data and 2010

epidemic intelligence data., European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Stockholm, 2011,

http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/1111_SUR_Annual_Epidemiological_Report_on_

Communicable_Diseases_in_Europe.pdf.

[17] Zoonoses Report 2010, Health Protection Agency, London, 2010Defra,http://www.Defra.gov.uk/publications/

les/pb13627-zoonoses-report2010.pdf.

[18] UK Research and Innovation Strategy for Campylobacter in the food-chain 2010-2015, Food Standarts

Agency, http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/campylobacterstrategy.pdf .

[19] O. Analytica, The Costs of Animal Disease: a report produced for the International Federation of Animal

Health, IFAH Oxford, 2012.

[20] SID1 ROAME Statement PI:040 Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies, Management Support and

Finance Team Defra - Science Directorate, London Defra, Not all SID1s are available online. Requests can be

made to Defra for the ROAME Statement.

[21] S. M. Crispin, P. A. Roger, H. OHare, S. H. Binns, Rev Sci Tech 2002, 21, 877-883.

[22] M. Ofce,Atmospheric dispersion modelling of wind-borne Bluetongue virus, Met Ofce, 2012,

http://www.metofce.gov.uk/media/pdf/n/q/DispersionLeaet_Bluetongue1.pdf .

[23] Food Related Risks: Special Eurobarometer European Food Safety Authority Brussels

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/factsheet/docs/reporten.pdf.

[24] W. Macdonald, in Partners in Research for Development, Vol. October 2005, Australian Centre for

International Agricultural Research 2005, p. 4.

[25] B. E. Beijing, UK in China: Agriculture, Food and Drink, Retail, Retrieved in Nov 2011,http://ukinchina.fco.gov.uk/en/business/building-uk-china-partnerships/025agriculture/.

[26] K. A. Johnson, D. E. Johnson,J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2483-2492.


27/32

27

[27] Defra, Dangerous Dogs,Retrieved in 2012, http://www.Defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/dangerous/ .

[28] N. R. C. Committee on the National Needs for Research in Veterinary Science, Critical Needs for Research in

Veterinary Science, National Academy of Sciences, 2005.

[29] A. T. B. Edney,J. R. Soc. Med. 1995, 88, P704-P708.

[30] D. L. Wells, Br. J. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 145-156.

[31] B. Trott, in Reuters Edition US, Reuters, US, 2009.

[32] Report of the 2011 review of the wildlife management research programme, Defra, London, 2011Defra,

http://archive.Defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/management/documents/wildlife-manage-projects2011.pdf.[33] A. A. Plume, M; Amin, M; Gracy, M; Weertman, N; Fowler, N; International Comparative Performance of the

UK Research Base - 2011London, UK, 2011, http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/science/docs/i/11-p123-

international-comparative-performance-uk-research-base-2011.

[34] K. C. Garg, S. Kumar, K. Lal, Scientometrics 2006, 68, 151-166.

[35] J. Adams, Nature 1998, 396, 615-618.

[36] D. A. Pendlebury, (Ed.: Thomson Reuters), Thomson Reuters, 2008.

[37] P. Jacso, Online Inf. Rev. 2009, 33, 831-837.

[38] M. E. Bruce, R. G. Will, et al., Nature 1997, 389, 498-501.

[39] R. G. Will, J. W. Ironside, et al., Lancet 1996, 347, 921-925.

[40] N. F. Union, Why Science matters for farming, 2008.

[41] J. Achur, SET Statistics - Science, engineering and technology indicators, BIS, London, 2010,

http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/science/science-funding/set-stats.[42] Defra, Food industry, supply chain, Retrieved in Nov 2011,

http://www.Defra.gov.uk/food-farm/food/food-industry/ .

[43] J. C. Jim Holding, Karen Stark, Food Statistics Pocketbook 2011, Defra, York, 2011National Statistics,

http://www.Defra.gov.uk/statistics/les/Defra-stats-foodfarm-food-pocketbook-2011.pdf.

[44] Land Use and Livestock Populations at 1 December 2010, Defra, London, 2011National Statistics,

http://www.Defra.gov.uk/statistics/les/Defra-stats-foodfarm-landuselivestock-dec-eng.pdf.

[45] Indicators for a Sustainable Food System, Defra, London,

http://www.Defra.gov.uk/statistics/les/Defra-stats-foodsystemindicators.pdf.

[46] C. Woteki,Why Science Matters to Agriculture, PCAST, 2011,USDA,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/les/microsites/ostp/pcast-woteki-1-7-2011.pdf

[47] Facts and Figures 2010, FEDIAF, 2010, http://www.fediaf.org/facts-gures/ .

[48] M. P. Michael Bellingham, Nicole Harrison, Lana Oliver, PFMAl Report 2011, Pet Food Manufacturers

Association London, 2011,

http://www.pfma.org.uk/_assets/images/general/le/Annual%20Report%202011.pdf.

[49] Key Figures 2010, European Horse Network Sweden, 2010,

http://www.europeanhorsenetwork.eu/index.php?page=horse-industry-in-europe .

[50] G. K. Crossman,An analysis of the equine sector in the Netherlands: how does it compare to the bristish

equine sector and what can we learn from it?, British Society of Animal Science England, 2008,

http://www.bsas.org.uk/downloads/027_CrossmanReportfortheBSASMurrayBlackAward2008.pdf.

[51] R. H. G. Suggett, Equine Veterinary Journal 1999, 31, 31-37.

[52] C. Liljenstolpe, in EU Equus 2009(Ed.: European horse network), The European Horse Network, Uppsala,

Sweden, 2009.

[53] S. Perman, Pampered Pets: Putting on the Dog, Business Week New York, 2005Bloomberg

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/may2005/sb20050513_4596.htm

[54] Eight tips for eating healthy, Retrieved in 2012,http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/eight-tips-healthy-eating.aspx.

[55] FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Food

and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations Rome, 2012,

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e00.htm.

[56] S. S. P. s. Organisation, Facts and gures on Scotlands Nr1 Export,Retrieved in 2012,

http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/facts_gures/index.aspx.

[57] J. G. Bell, J. Pratoomyot, et al,Aquaculture 2010, 306, 225-232.

[58] A. Radford, Riddington, G, Gibson, H, The economic impact of freshwater angling in England & Wales, The

Environment Agency, 2007, http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/SCHO1207BNNW-E-E.pdf .

[59] Statistics of Scientic Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2009,Home Ofce, 2010,

http://www.homeofce.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/other-science-

research/spanimals11/spanimals11?view=Binary.


28/32

28

AnnexInvestment in veterinary research: available data

Methods

The amount of investment in veterinary research for the different organisations in 2009/2010 was obtainedfrom published information, direct email and telephone enquiries and is indicated in Table A. The valuespresented for 1996/97 were obtained from the Selborne Report[2]and from published reports by theinstitutions. All values were corrected for 2011 ination, with the average ination values indicated by theBank of England

(http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/ination/calculator/ash/default.aspx)

Total amount of research spend

The Selborne Report mentions two different estimates of the total amount of investment in veterinaryresearch: the partial total and the overall total.

I.1 Partial total

The partial total, as dened in the Selborne report does not include the contribution of the HEFCin supporting research infrastructure in the veterinary schools and other university departments or ofresearch funds from other sources such as the animal welfare societies or pharmaceutical companies.

It consists solely of the aggregate investment given by BBSRC, MAFF (now Defra), SOAFED (nowRESAS), the Wellcome Trust and the industrial funding bodiesiand it was estimated to be between 40mand 50m in 1996/97 (62m to 77m if corrected for ination).

BBSRC investment in animal research

Unfortunately the values for RESAS in 1996/1997 are not known and therefore the partial totalpreviously reported cannot be fully veried. Data retrieved by the RCVS Research Subcommittee from the

funding bodies for that year suggests that the Selborne Report might have slightly underestimated theinvestment in research for that year, since the sum of all the values for 1996/97 excluding RESASreachesthe top end of Selbornes estimate (77.48m). For 2009/10,if RESAS is excluded again, this numberwould be 102.65m, which suggests a 32% increase in the amount of investment in veterinary researchover the last 14 years.

Again, this value cannot be taken as a true account of investment. Not only does it disregard thecontribution of RESAS which is not ideal, as it is articially boosted by changes in the denition ofveterinary research by the BBSRC occurred in this time frame.

This effect can be seen in detail in Figure a, where the absolute values of BBSRCs investment in animalhealth research in the last 14 years are plotted alongside the percentage of gross annual expenditureinvested in the veterinary sciences for the same period of time.

The large increase in (absolute) funding is therefore attributed to a administrative change, even if thepercentage of the BBSRCs investment in veterinary research compared to their total spend hasntchanged signicantly over the years (Figure a).

i Horseracing Betting Levy Board, Milk Development Council, Meat and Livestock Commision and British Egg Marketing BoardResearch and Education Trust).


29/32

29

BBSRC investment in animal research

Figure a - BBSRCs investment in veterinary research from 1996/1997 to 2010/2011 (all values corrected for 2011 ination) and %BBSRC gross annual expenditure spent in veterinary research for the same period of time. The dotted lines indicate that the valueswere estimated. (Source for raw data: BBSRC)

An (arguably) more valid comparison between investment levels needs to be carried out, discountingRESAS (because the true numbers are not known for 1996/97) and BBSRC (because administrativechanges introduce articial increase in numbers).

Discounting these two bodies, the Research Subcommittee estimates that there is actually a 5.5%decrease in veterinary funding over the last 14 years.

It is acknowledged, however, that due to the limitations in comparing the values between the two periods,these numbers should be quoted with caution.

Investment 1996/97 2009/2010 Difference

BBSRC 17.04m 45.56m Not comparable

Defra 39.70m 35.70m i10%

RESAS Not available 11.0m Not comparable

Wellcome Trust 7.70m 12.1m - 13.2m h57% - 71%

Industrial funding bodies 13.04m 9.29m i29%

Partial total reported 62m - 77mSelborne estimate

112.65m - 113.75This report

h46% - 82%(apparent increase)

Partial total(discounting RESAS)

77.48mThis report

102.65 - 103.75mThis report

h32%(apparent increase)

Partial total(discounting RESAS and BBSRC)

60.44m 57.09m - 58.19 i5.5%(estimated decrease)


30/32

30

I.2 Overall total

The second estimatementioned in the Selborne report focuses on the annual research spending of theveterinary schools, the Institute for Animal Health, Defra, the Animal Health Trust, the Morendun ResearchInstitute and other bodies not predominantly involved with research) was estimated to be between 60mand 70m (92m to 108m, with correction for ination).

Once again, comparisons between investment values in the two different time periods are challenging not

only because the reasons behind the choice of these organisations are unclear but also because some ofthese values are difcult to source and trace back.

This report chose to take a different approach, comparing the research income (rather than the researchspend) of academic veterinary research between 1996/1997 and 2009/2010, since both these valueswere available and comparable.

Values of investment in academic veterinary research can be obtained from the Higher EducationStatistics Agency (HESA) by analysing the Research Grants and Contracts Income for the VeterinarySciences cost centre (results in the table below corrected for ination).

Veterinary academic research investment

1996/97 2009/10 Difference

32.8m 54.8m h67%

Veterinary research happens beyond the university environment and therefore these values cannot betaken as a true measure of the change in the trend of investment. It seems, however that academicresearch has been successful in attracting increasing amounts of funding, even in a recession economy,which further conrms its status as one of the most competitive academic bases in the world.

Other factors can also come into play here, such as administrative changes in the way that researchfunding is made by the funding bodies, with contributions to the research infrastructure that werepreviously not seen as part of grants or contracts now having to be included in such projects. Theseissues are too complex to analyse here and were not pursued further.

It became apparent that comparisons between levels of funding could only be made with gross

assumptions since so many of the values were not comparable between 1996/97 and 2009/10, or didnot reect an accurate picture. For this reason, the authors chose to fully report the gures obtained byenquiry, in the hope that such as task will be made possible in the future. Such numbers can be found inTable A, already corrected for ination at 2011 values.

The value found for 2009/10, taking account of the major funders of research and some of the smallcharities, is between 126.8 and 127.9m, which should not be compared with the overall total found bythe Selborne Report.

From what was said before:

Data suggests that there was a decrease of about 5% in investment in veterinary research sincez1996/97;

Reported funding for veterinary university research has seen an increase of 67%; and,z

In the year of 2009/10 there was 127-128m available for veterinary research in the UK.z


31/32

31

Table a:Funding available for research in the veterinary sciences at present and comparison with1996/1997 values[2]corrected for inationiat 2011 values (for 1996/97 average ination/year=2.9%,for 2009/20010 average ination=4.9%). Data collected by phone or email enquiry in Aug 2011. (n/a:information not available, even though the value is possibly accounted for in the nal gure published inthe Selborne report)

Funding Body 1996/1997(corrected for ination 2.9%)

2009/2010(corrected for ination 4.9%)

Observation

Defra (formerly MAFF)8 39.7 m 35.7 mPublished information

and email enquiry

BBSRC 17.04m9 45.56 m10 Email enquiry

EU n/a 2.86 m Email enquiry

Wellcome Trust 7.70 m 12.1 - 13.211 Email enquiry

Medical Research Council 1.08 m 3.41 mPublished Information

and email enquiry12

RESAS n/a 11.0 m Published information

Horserace Betting LevyBoard (HBLB)

2.31 m 1.32 m Published information

Dairy Co(formerly Milk DevelopmentCouncil)


British Egg MarketingBoard Research andEducation Trust


EBLEX and BPEX(formerly the Meat and LivestockCommission)


RCVS Charitable Trust 0.29 m 0.15 m Emai